Benchmark: Object Indexed Properties

Script Preparation code:

var LIMIT = 10000;

Tests:

Array
var target = []; for (var i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) { target[i] = i; }
Object
var target = {}; for (var i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) { target[i] = i; }
Sparse Array
var target = []; for (var i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) { if (i % 2 === 0) { target[i] = i; } }
Sparse Object
var target = {}; for (var i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) { if (i % 2 === 0) { target[i] = i; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array
Object
Sparse Array
Sparse Object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents four test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript arrays and objects with sparse data structures.

In each test case, a loop is executed `LIMIT` times (set to 10,000 in this example), where the target data structure (`array` or `object`) is populated with indices starting from 0. The difference between these tests lies in whether every index has been set (`full array/object`) or only some of them have been set (`sparse array/object`). The sparse arrays and objects are created using an `if` condition that checks if the current index is even, and only then sets the value.

**Options compared:**

The four test cases compare:

1. **Full Array**: A regular JavaScript array where every index is set.
2. **Full Object**: A regular JavaScript object where every property key has a corresponding value.
3. **Sparse Array**: A sparse array where only some indices are set (every other index, starting from 0).
4. **Sparse Object**: A sparse object where only some property keys have values.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Full Array**:
	* Pros: Easier to work with, as every index is available.
	* Cons: May incur unnecessary overhead for accessing indices that are not set.
2. **Full Object**:
	* Pros: Similar to arrays, but provides a more flexible data structure.
	* Cons: May have slower access times compared to sparse arrays/object due to the need to iterate over all property keys.
3. **Sparse Array**:
	* Pros: Can be faster for accessing indices that are not set, as only those indices need to be checked.
	* Cons: May require more memory overhead due to the empty slots in the array.
4. **Sparse Object**:
	* Pros: Provides a balance between the flexibility of objects and the efficiency of sparse arrays.
	* Cons: Similar to sparse arrays, may have slower access times for non-existent property keys.

**Library used (if any)**:

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it is likely that some JavaScript engines or environments might use internal optimizations or heuristics that could affect the performance of these tests.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None are specifically highlighted in this benchmark. The focus appears to be on testing the basic behavior and performance differences between full arrays, objects, sparse arrays, and sparse objects.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative data structures for JavaScript, some options include:

1. **Typed Arrays**: For working with homogeneous numerical or binary data.
2. **Map**: A similar data structure to objects, but with better performance for key-value pairs.
3. **Set**: An unordered collection of unique values.

Keep in mind that the choice of data structure ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Object Indexed Properties (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array vs Object vs Sparse Array vs Sparse Object

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array

Object

Sparse Array

Sparse Object

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):